Despite my aversion to too much salivating at the mere mention of rounds per minute and payload capacity, so often an affliction of the boys with toys brigade, I would be interested to hear some opinions on the following point.
Would it be reasonable to say that an air force today without fighter cover can really be called an air force, or would it be more accurate to call it an air support unit or some other similarly innocuous name?
I am thinking of the New Zealand example where a few aged helicopters and a couple of Hercules have constituted the RNZAF for a number of years since the last fighter squadron was retired and not replaced.
x
Would it be reasonable to say that an air force today without fighter cover can really be called an air force, or would it be more accurate to call it an air support unit or some other similarly innocuous name?
I am thinking of the New Zealand example where a few aged helicopters and a couple of Hercules have constituted the RNZAF for a number of years since the last fighter squadron was retired and not replaced.
x
Comment